Introduction
I conducted this research study in order to better understand the factors that promote engagement and motivation among high school students. A means to achieving this understanding was to have students voice their perceptions of these topics. I have employed qualitative research methods as a paradigm of choice due to the fact that qualitative research allows for rich description of meaning from the data that is gathered and analyzed, and it allows for interpretive understanding of the information gathered in the study (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Merriam, 2002). With qualitative research I am able to achieve personal, self-knowledge, which was one of the goals in conducting this research study. It was my intention that the individuals who participated in this study would gain a deeper understanding as to what is meant by authentic and engaging work in schools. By using qualitative methods to gather and analyze the data, I believed I would better
understand the nature of how students are engaged in their work in school. I also gained a more complete understanding of what students considered to be authentic work and engaging learning situations.
Research Questions
Dropout rates are increasing in high schools across the country. The problem of dropping out of school – either physically or mentally – has challenged educators to
adopt new methods to engage students in learning. One of the methods some educators have begun to use is the implementation of authentic learning tasks. By incorporating real-world activities to gain the interest of students, educators are attempting to motivate students to learn the material presented in a way that makes students want to stay in school. Several theorists propose that in order for the desired level of motivation to be realized, educators must solicit the student voice and attend to their perceptions concerning their learning. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to investigate student perceptions of how schools contribute to their engagement. While interviewing
participants, I viewed their perceptions through the lens of what Dewey recognizes as a democratic school. Dewey provided three definitive conditions for the realization of authentic learning environments: (a) being a part of an embryonic community of learners, (b) providing problems that are meaningful and relevant to students, and (c) providing work that promotes thoughtful engagement. These conditions are all intrinsic parts of Dewey’s notion of a democratic school of authentically engaged learners. I used them to guide me in developing the following research questions:
1. What elements within schools do students identify as important factors that influence the degree to which they can be engaged in authentic learning experiences?
2. Do the values, norms, and requirements that constitute school mirror similar elements of a student’s life outside of school?
Research Design
In designing this research study, I believed it best to interview students for their perceptions of learning and engagement. I decided to use aspects of phenomenology
during the interview process because I was attempting to uncover the deeper meaning of what students considered engaging and authentic work in schools. By interviewing participants, both individually and in a focus group session, I attempted to uncover the essence of the students’ lived experiences with their work in schools and how they have internalized the meaning of what such work has become to them. It is the rich and meaningful texture of the nature and essence of how students perceived work in schools that I strived to uncover during the data collection process of my study.
According to van Manen (1990), phenomenology is the study of lived experiences and how we attach meaning to those experiences. Conversing with participants during the interview process engages interplay between the verbal and nonverbal subjectivities of two people (Munhall, 1994). This interplay of two peoples’ perspectives within their life- worlds - their feelings, thoughts, ideas, and principles – becomes intertwined during active conversations. Munhall referred to the interplay of the verbal and nonverbal subjective worlds of two people (researcher and participant in this case) as
intersubjectivity.
As the researcher begins to have conversations with his or her participant, he or she steps back from being the research authority by allowing the participant to share information without threat of reprisal. The participant, during the interview, tells the researcher “what it is like” for him or her in a particular learning situation. During this time, the interviewer needs to remain completely objective and avoid interjecting ideas from one’s own life-world. Being objective and avoiding inserting one’s own ideas into conversations allows for the data to be more accurately reported from the participants. To
avoid subjectivity and interject one’s own ideas could compromise the data collection process during the course of interviews.
Sample
I conducted this qualitative study of engagement at a suburban high school located in Northeast Georgia using a convenience sample of six eleventh grade high school students. My rationale for choosing only six students was because my interview protocol was extensive in order to gain the depth and richness of data I needed for the study. By using fewer participants in my study, I planned to gain a greater depth of inquiry. Students were selected out of their science class, but each student selected had a different science teacher.
My research contact at the school was the head of the science department. Based on the fact that she was head of her department, we determined that it would be more convenient to make contacts and arrangements for participants to be interviewed if she had close contact with the teachers of those participating students. Even though they were chosen from science, interview questions were centered on subjects other than science and how those subjects can be engaging or disengaging to the student.
My research contact at the site further assisted me in requesting lead teachers and having those teachers identify students to participate in the study. The main criterion for selection of students was that students were willing to share their ideas concerning engagement and authentic work in schools. Because some teens have difficulty expressing their views when asked thought-provoking questions, I asked teachers to select students who demonstrated good verbal skills in class. I made this a criterion for
selection because I wanted participants who would talk about their perceptions and feelings related to their classes and the work given to them by their teachers. Because the study is based on student perceptions and views of learning, I needed to recruit students who would talk about their experiences. A demonstration of good verbal skills would provide students who should be willing to talk and share their ideas in an interview situation. Another criterion for selection was the inclusion of minorities in the research study so that views from varied backgrounds and cultures could be considered.
Participants represented the countries of America, Colombia, Estonia, and Haiti. Although various views from the different cultures became apparent in the data, these views were not critiqued because the evaluation of educational views by race was beyond the scope of this study. Teachers chose students for the interviews based on student willingness to participate in the study. Although bias could have been introduced into the study by having teachers select from willing participants in their classrooms, I believed this was the best selection method to use as I knew neither the teachers nor the students of this particular study site.
I conducted qualitative research as a means of understanding how students perceived their learning environments – as engaging or disengaging – and why they felt that way. Qualitative research allowed me to gain an in-depth understanding of the
meaning students construct from their experiences with work in schools (Merriam, 2002). As a qualitative researcher, I participated in the research process in two ways. I gathered student data from individual interviews and a focus group session. Individual
phenomenological interviews were scheduled, at the principal’s request, so that they occurred during the school day.
Once the six students were identified, I met with all of them at the same time to discuss the study and what would be expected of each student. At this time, I gave each student the informed consent papers (see Appendixes A and B) and a stamped envelope, asking that they return the paperwork to me within one week if they wished to participate in the study. I also had each student write down his or her name, class schedule, and e- mail address so I could contact each of them, if needed. As required by the Institutional Review Board (IRB), students received a copy of the questions. The questions were provided to each student during the initial meet and greet session (see Appendix C for meet and greet protocol and Appendix D for interview questions). IRB approval was gained before initiating any form of contact with my participants. I had five of the six students return the signed paperwork. I contacted the remaining student, but she declined to participate. I informed the lead teacher of this problem and she contacted the science teachers to have one of them select another female participant. Once I had the paperwork from all six participants, I contacted each of them by e-mail or phone. I worked to
schedule interviews so that they would not conflict with testing or the presentation of new material in the classroom.
Once interviews were scheduled, I met with each student individually so that I could conduct the interview in a quiet, private place where anonymity of the student could be maintained. When meeting with each student, I further explained the purpose and the student’s role of participation in the study. I then asked students if I could use a digital recorder to have a record of the interview. Each participant agreed to be digitally recorded. I then interviewed each student and transcribed their interviews from the
recorder to a paper copy for analysis. I transcribed interviews verbatim with a word processor while listening to the digital recorder
By interviewing three males and three females, I gained valuable information from both genders. By interviewing students of various nations – America, Colombia, Estonia, and Haiti – I gained a general perspective, although limited based on the small sample size and amount of responses, of how schooling is viewed in other nations. The main benefit of my study was in having students thoughtfully analyze their own
experiences with work in schools so that they would have a better understanding of their motivations or lack thereof, and be able to critique those motivations. It was my hope that students would gain personal insight about how they experienced work in schools and how they related to their work. By virtue of those insights and their increased knowledge of authentic learning, I desired that participants would gain a new awareness of how they could be fully engaged in their learning experiences. I further hoped teachers would be able to critique the way they impart information to students so they could critically analyze the methods and outcomes of their instruction.
By having students talk about their perspectives, they become more aware of what influences their thoughts and feelings about a topic (Lincoln, 1995). Following this assertion, students should then gain awareness from talking about what engages or disengages them in the classroom. Students can then have more control over these
situations by talking to their teachers about their feelings and then conversations between student and teacher can bring about changes related to engagement in the classroom. As Dahl (1995) contended, “insights into what children value and care about help us
we pay attention to what children value as learners and consider children’s voice “if we are to genuinely support children’s learning” (p. 129). The ultimate desire of gaining knowledge from this study was to have teachers learn to listen to their students and create engaging lessons and activities so that students would want to come to school and be excited about their learning experiences.
As posited by Willis (2007), current ethical guidelines call for participants to give informed consent, generally meaning they are told what the researcher wants to do and why. I gained informed consent from both participants and their parent/guardian by providing each person with a letter explaining the study. Both participants and parents of the participants had to sign the paper work in order to begin the interview process. During the meet and greet session, participants were informed of the purpose, procedures,
possible risks, possible benefits, information about voluntary participation and/or withdrawal, and measures to ensure confidentiality while taking part in the study.
Concerning participants and the possibility of identification, I used pseudonyms so identity was unknown in the context of the research study. I used a code key to match the actual name of the participant to the pseudonym but kept it in separate place to maintain ethical measures and to maintain anonymity of my participants.
Focus group interviews presented another set of ethical issues to be resolved at the onset of the study. The main issue, as asserted by Wilkinson (2003), concerns confidentiality. Wilkinson contended that ground rules must be set to ensure that potentially sensitive material is not discussed outside of the group and that all group members go in to the focus group interview with a respect for others confidentiality. Establishing a degree of trust with my participants was essential during the progression of
the study. I worked to establish trust in my participants by explaining to them that the information they shared with me would not be shared with any of their teachers or with the lead teacher of the study. I explained to each of the participants that all information shared with me would remain confidential. Essential as well was that participants could trust one another during the focus group interview. By establishing trust, participants were more willing to share information openly and without fear of data being
compromised.
In order to maintain an ethical stance during my research, I used methods to keep information secure and was candid with my participants concerning the purpose of my study. While gathering, organizing, and analyzing the data, I maintained ethical guidelines by assuring the data on the digital recorder and computer hard drive were secure and that only I had access to the digital information. The students and I were the only ones who had access to the data during the course of the study. Students were given access to their own transcripts for member-checking verification, and I had access to their digital recordings and my transcript notes. I also made certain my participants understood that the information shared in the focus group session should remain confidential. I verbally explained to each participant the importance of maintaining trust with their peers. What is spoken of in the focus group session should remain private and should not be shared with anyone outside of the research study and its participants.
Measures
According to Rubin and Rubin (2005), failure to specify one’s role as a researcher in a way the interviewees can understand may make the interviewing process difficult.
Rubin and Rubin further asserted that in establishing an acceptable researcher role, one should communicate to participants who you are in a way they can accept and
understand. I took on the participant observer role so that my participants and I could actively engage in uncovering how work, engagement, and authentic learning are perceived in schools. I did not wish to be seen as the professional academic who wanted answers to her questions but to be in the role of active uncoverer of knowledge so that my participants would begin to question how they perceive work in schools. By assuming the role of participant observer, it was my estimation that I would better be able to gain the trust of my participants, thus arriving at data that would be more reliable in the context of the study.
Another concern in research is research bias. As part of the phenomenological method and qualitative methodology in general, I have attempted to recognize and attend to my own biases and values during the course of the study. Phenomenological research refers to this recognition of one’s own biases as bracketing (van Manen, 1990). In the process of bracketing, the researcher identifies and recognizes inherent bias and deals with the bias accordingly. This was necessary for me to do because I am a high school teacher and desire for students to be engaged in their work. My own thoughts and feelings concerning engagement and work in schools had to be set aside during the interview process so bias could be minimized. I did not want participants to recognize the ideas and beliefs I had concerning engagement so I had to approach the topic and my questions with care not to create bias. This is a difficult process but must be recognized and adhered to during the course of the study. During the development of my questions, I maintained an ethical stance by wording my questions so as not to show researcher bias
toward a desired outcome. I took care, as well, to phrase my research questions and probes so that they did not contain bias.
Data Collection and Analysis Procedures Interviews.
By interviewing participants individually, I was able to achieve a basic understanding of how each student conceptualizes the meaning of authentic work in schools. I used the interview data to identify the beliefs, values,
conceptions/misconceptions, and motivations concerning engagement and authentic work experiences that these students have had in school. Through initial interviews, individuals were able to gain a sense of their own conceptions and feelings concerning authentic work and engagement in schools. I chose to develop open-ended questions to allow participants to attempt to uncover the deeper meaning concerning engagement and authentic work in schools.
Phenomenological interviews.
Phenomenological interviews involve an in-depth analysis of insights that bring us, as both participants and researchers, closer to meaning in our everyday existence. As asserted by van Manen (1990), “Phenomenological human science is the study of lived or existential meanings; it attempts to describe and interpret these meanings to a certain degree of depth and richness” (p. 11). My phenomenological interviews involved three of the six key activities that, according to van Manen, are important in the research process.